Keehang Kwon, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl.
, Vol 2 (1), 121-123 ISSN : 2229-6093
Adding a Loop Construct to Prolog
Keehang Kwon
Dept. of Computer Engineering, DongA University
Busan 604-714, Korea
khkwon@dau.ac.kr
Abstract: Prolog have traditionally lacked de-
vices for the looping tasks. This limitation can
be addressed by using a fragment of Japaridze’s
computability logic. We propose SeqProlog, an
extension to Prolog with sequential recurrence
goal formulas. SeqProlog extends Prolog by al-
T
lowing goals of the form G where G is a goal.
These goals allow us to specify the looping tasks.
keywords: Prolog, loop, computability logic
1 Introduction
The while-loop constructs have been popular in
imperative languages. Despite its wide use, the
while-loop constructs cannot be specified in logic
programming based on classical logic or linear
logic. For example, it is very awkward to specify
the following task in Prolog: repeatedly read a
number N , output the factorial of N until some
negative number is read.
Dealing with the looping tasks in Prolog is
typically done via the use of recursion in the in-
struction set. One major drawback with these
attempts is that the semantics of the instruction
set becomes awkward and complicated. This
limitation can be overcome only by a new seman-
tics for logical formulas, i.e., using Japaridze’s
Computability Logic(CL)[2]. CL is a beauti-
ful semantic platform for reinterpreting logic as
a theory of tasks. Formulas in CL stand for
instructions that can carry out some computa-
tional tasks.
This paper proposes SeqProlog, an extension
of Prolog with sequential recurrence operators
in goal formulas. Traditionally, Prolog has the
problem of expressing the while-loop tasks. The
class of sequential recurrence operators enables
the programmer to express these looping tasks.
To be specific, a sequential-conjunctive-
T
recurrence goal is of the form G where G is
a goal. Executing this goal has the following in-
tended semantics: execute G repeatedly. All ex-
T
ecutions must succeed for executing G to suc-
ceed.
On the other hand, a sequential-conjunctive
goal, introduced in [3], is of the form G1 ∩ G2
where G1 , G2 are goals. Executing this goal has
the following intended semantics: execute both
G1 and G2 in sequence. Both executions must
succeed for executing G1 ∩ G2 to succeed.
In this paper we present the syntax and se-
mantics of this extended language, show some
examples of its use.
The remainder of this paper is structured as
follows. We describe SeqProlog based on a first-
order sequential Horn clauses in the next sec-
tion. In Section 3, we present some examples of
SeqProlog. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2 The Language
The language we use is an expanded version
of Horn clauses with sequential-conjunctive-
recurrence goals. It is described by G- and D-
formulas given by the syntax rules below:
G ::= A | G ∧ G | G ∨ G | ∃x G | G ∩ G |
T
G
D ::= A | G ⊃ A | ∀x D | D ∧ D
In the rules above, A represents an atomic
formula. A D-formula is called a sequential Horn
clause.
121
 Keehang Kwon, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (1), 121-123 ISSN : 2229-6093

In the transition system to be considered, G- (6) If G is G1 ∩ G2 , then execute both hP, G1 i

formulas will function as queries and a set of D- and hP, G2 i in sequence. Both executions
formulas will constitute a set of available instruc- must succeed for the current execution to
tions. For this reason, we refer to a G-formula as succeed.
a query, to a set of D-formula as an instruction
G, then execute both hP, Gi
T
set. (7) If G is
and hP, Gi in sequence. Both executions
T
We will present an operational semantics for
this language. These rules in fact depend on the must succeed for the current execution to
top-level constructor in the expression, a prop- succeed.
erty known as uniform provability[5]. It is worth T
noting that this property is preserved by disal- In the above rules, the symbols provides loop-
lowing the disjunctive formulas, existential for- ing executions of instructions: they allow for the
mulas in the instruction set. We disallow the repeated sequential conjunctive execution of the
sequential conjunctive formulas as well in the in- instructions. We conjecture the completeness of
struction set for simplicity. the above procedure with respect to the CL se-
It appears that uniform provability is re- mantics at this stage.
quired only for noninteractive algorithms.
Definition 2.1. Let G be a goal and let P be a 3 Examples
finite set of available instructions. Then the no-
An example of the use of this construct is pro-
tion of executing hP, Gi – executing G relative
vided by the following “factorial” program which
to P – is defined as follows:
contains some basic factorial-handling instruc-
(1) If G is an atom and is identical to an in- tions written in conventional Prolog. Here + is
stance of a program clause in P, then the used for the arithmetic addition and nat(X) is
current execution terminates with a suc- true if X is a natural number.
cess. f act(0, 1). % base case
(2) If G is an atom and an instance of a pro- f act(X + 1, XY + Y ) : − f act(X, Y ) ∧ nat(X).
gram clause in P is of the form G1 ⊃ G,
execute hP, G1 i. This execution must suc-
Our language in Section 2 permits sequential-
ceed for the current execution to succeed.
conjunctive-recurrence operators in goals. This
(3) If G is G1 ∧ G2 , then execute both hP, G1 i allows for repeated sequential interactions be-
and hP, G2 i in parallel. Both executions tween the user and the system. An example
must succeed for the current execution to of the use of this construct is provided by the
succeed. program which repeatedly does the following se-
quential tasks: read a number from the user, and
(4) If G is G1 ∨ G2 , then execute both hP, G1 i then output its factorial number:
and hP, G2 i in parallel. At least one of
these two executions must succeed for the query :.
T
current execution to succeed. % while-loop begin
(read(N )∩
(5) If G is ∃xG1 , then execute hP, [t/x]G1 i f act(N, O)∩
where t is a term. This execution must write(0 f act :0 )∩
succeed for the current execution to suc- write(O)) % while-loop end
ceed.

122
 Keehang Kwon, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (1), 121-123 ISSN : 2229-6093

For example, consider a goal query. Solving this References

goal has the effect of executing query with re-
spect to the instructions in the factorial program. [1] S. Abramsky, “Sequentiality vs concurrency
in Games and Logic”, Mathematical Struc-
tures in Computer Science, vol.13, pp.531–
565, 2003.
4 Conclusion
[2] G. Japaridze, “Introduction to computabil-
In this paper, we have considered an extension ity logic”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic,
to Prolog with sequential Horn clauses. This ex- vol.123, pp.1–99, 2003.
T
tension allows goals of the form G where G is
a goal. These goals are particularly useful for [3] K. Kwon and S. Hur, “Adding sequential
the looping executions of instructions. Our fu- conjunctions to Prolog”, IJCTA, vol.1, No.1,
ture interest is in a language which extends se- pp.1-3, 2010.
quential hereditary Harrop formulas with these
[4] D. Miller, “A logical analysis of modules in
features[1].
logic programming”, Journal of Logic Pro-
gramming, vol.6, pp.79–108, 1989.

5 Acknowledgements [5] D. Miller, G. Nadathur, F. Pfenning, and

A. Scedrov, “Uniform proofs as a foundation
This work was supported by Dong-A University for logic programming”, Annals of Pure and
Research Fund. Applied Logic, vol.51, pp.125–157, 1991.

123